Previous interps of the RLV by BR said if BR's left foot was touching completely outside the RL, then violation. If the right foot was touching the FB line when the throw occurs, nothing. Yes, the BR could be violating or legal depending on which foot is touching the ground.

Where my brain fails me (among other things) is if the instance of violation is at time of throw or when the ball passes (or hits) the BR.

Time of pitch...I believe.

Official
 

I received the following this morning form the NFHS Rules Committee Chair:

As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't change much.

This position seems to be supported by this year's Interps.

From this year's (2010) Rule Interps:

SITUATION 7: B1 lays down a bunt that is fielded by F2 in fair territory a few feet in front of home plate. As B1 is 60 feet from home base, he is running outside the running lane with one foot completely in fair ground and not touching the lines of the running lane. F2 fields the ball and (a) attempts to throw to first but throws high into right field as he tries not to hit B1, or (b) does not attempt a throw. RULING: B1 is required to be in the running lane the last 45 feet to first base when the ball is fielded and thrown from an area behind him. In (a), this is interference and B1 is out and the ball is declared dead. In (b), since there was no throw, there is no interference. F2 is not required to hit B1 to demonstrate that B1 is out of the running lane, but a throw must be made for the interference to be declared. (8-4-1g)

Does it at least have to be in the general direction of 1B?

No problem here, on Saturday I had to explain to top coaches that stepping into dead ball territory with both feet after a catch is a dead ball, 12 players are not allowed in live ball territory when a run is scored and the batter is out for interference with R1 and no outs, on a steal of second.

I am completely confident that they will understand that even though the opposing catchers arm sucks, their honor roll scholar is out for not being in the lane.

I am fully expecting at least one of them to say, "Oh yea, Situation #7 of this years Rule Interps, Gee thanks.":rolleyes:

I suppose I can manage to call it. But what annoys me is that the FED wants this called with no judgment involved because umpires spent years simply not calling it. Hell, I've ended a game on RLI.

The rule says the infraction is ignored if the act does not interfere with a fielder or a throw. I can understand calling INT if the lane-violating B/R is directly between 1st base and F2 (or whoever is fielding the ball), and the throw is sailed way over F3's head.

But when the fielder has a clear shot to 1st, the B/R is interfering with neither the throw nor F3 and by rule, the infraction should be ignored. I didn't need an interpretation to call that play correctly. Now it's all F'ed up and I'm probably going to take a lot of crap for enforcing a rule as I have been told to enforce it. Good job.

I feel your pain. Once the concept of "quality throw" is on board, it seems unfair for the defense to get a cheap out for RLI based on a crap play.

As you know, however, FED doesn't want to tax its umpires any more than necessary, and judging a "quality throw" on this rare play is taxing (or it is for many in my association, at least). So any throw will do.

Many in my association will cheer for the cheap out, regardless of whether the result is "good baseball." I console myself with the thought that it ain't the worst thing in FEDlandia (hey, that's not a bad thread title...).

According to the POE (from Officials' Quarterly, which I assume is the same as what's in the rules book): "Umpires and coaches must also be aware the just because the BR is outside the line, interference should not be called unless the location of the BR outside the running lane altered the play."

Its not a cheap out, its a deserved out, being "good baseball" by the defense. I understand the "quality" throw thing, but unless F2 shoots it straight up in the air like a rocket, this should be RLI.

Weve all been around long enough to know the BR is trying to get in the way of the throw, block F3, etc... The defense is doing what its supposed to do, field the ball, and get it to first.
And so if F2 zings it 10 feet over F3s head, Maybe its because he was trying to throw it over the guy, the guy who is where he shouldnt be, because hes trying to cause that exact action by the catcher?
We are out there to see the game is played fairly, and neither team gets an unfair advantage....Im thinking that this would qualify, not a cheap out, but a deserved one.
And so you dont penalize the BR for an obvious intentional act, violating a rule, as F2 tried to overcome that? But he overcomes it too much and throws a few feet too high?...

This is a bit off topic, but why does RLI only cover BR to first? It seems like the rule should either apply in all situations or not at all.

Why did the rule come into the game? Were batters purposely bunting in front of the plate and running zig-zags to first?

Like all rules, the RLI rule tries to strike a balance between offense and defense.

The defense always has to throw around runners who are legally running the bases. But only the BR can deliberately put a batted (bunted) ball directly behind a runner (himself) and set up a kind of interference.

The RLI limits the batter's ability to hinder the defense in this way.

Bad news folks
 

Here is the sum total of a conversation with the chair of the FED rules committee. Out of respect to him, I will not put his e-mails on the thread, just a few tidbits:

"..."quality" throw is NOT part of the rule. We have too many instances where the catcher lobs it over the runner or tries to throw around him, etc., trying not to hit him, but still throwing. That is still the runner's creation by violating the rule. So, if the BR is violating the running lane, and a throw is made, we have interference. The only exception is: if the throw is from the foul side and the BR is out of the lane on the fair side, or vice versa."

Further....

"This is NOT a change. This interpretation (any throw is enough for RLI, my addition) has been in place for 25+ years.... Across the nation, this has worked well. Frankly, right now, umpires are doing a lousy job of enforcing this rule and that is why it is a Point of Emphasis. There will be no effort to change it.

Take it FWIW. I disagree with some things he says, but I am not on the rules committee yet.